HOW MANY WORLD RECORD HOLDERS AND OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALLISTS OF THE LAST 20 YEARS HAVE ACHIEVED THESE THINGS BY USING THE TRADITIONAL LONG BUILD UP LYDIARD SYSTEM
HOW MANY WORLD RECORD HOLDERS AND OLYMPIC GOLD MEDALLISTS OF THE LAST 20 YEARS HAVE ACHIEVED THESE THINGS BY USING THE TRADITIONAL LONG BUILD UP LYDIARD SYSTEM
I already said in a past post (although it might have been on the Lydiard anaerobic thread, I forget) that I agree that the idea of peaking once a year is no longer the best way for the many commitments modern athletes have.
But there's a difference between "while still viable, a plan adhering to Lydiard principals would need to be modified for the modern needs of an athlete" and "one part of Lydiard is outdated, so we have to throw the whole model out."
I've been trying to argue from the beginning (both on this thread and the other one IQ100 first showed up on) that it isn't that black and white.
It's like "oh, one little bit of Lydiard is out. Therefore, his system is junk." No. That's not right- Lydiard's principles are still viable today, they just need to be rearranged depending on the needs of the athletes- just like ANY program needs to be based on the needs of its athletes.
Oh, and for a distance runner in the last 20 years who uses a Lydiard program? Craig Mottram. Not an Olympic medalist or world record holder, yet, but he's world class, anyway.
Lastly, there isn't "no evidence" that long runs help. How about all the evidence that Dr. Peter Snell, a premier exercise physiologist, has accrued over the years? I would think Dr. Snell has some idea of what it means to be a world class runner; he used to be pretty decent on the New Zealand club scene.
I'm no Lydiardite, but there are things Lydiard brought to the table that no one else had done before him. I think his contributions should be given as much credit as Peter Coe's and Gerschler's and Van Aaken's and Cerutty's and Zatopek's and Stampfl's.
If I come down heavily on the side of the "Lydiard Cultists" its because I think they're being unfairly attacked.
When I look at the training of elite athletes, I try to find common threads instead of the differences. If 90% of elite athletes do one particular kind of training, then I can logically conclude such training is beneficial, and I should try to incorporate it.
When I look at history's best milers, a majority of the ones I studied ran long runs. Some ran long and easy, some long and steady, some long and fast. But many of the greatest ran long.
Maybe I was too hasty in saying they are "ESSENTIAL" for middle distance runners. But I sure think they're very important- and, for many mid-distance guys, the "missing ingredient" that's keeping them from getting to that next level. A weekly long run during prep periods is difficult to do, boring, and very, very unsexy. But I think they're as vital as repeats at mile pace.
Is "modified Lydiard" still Lydiard? When does it become so modified for "modern times" that we can and should stop calling it Lydiard? Is there any limit to this? Time and time again I've seen athletes and coaches saying "we are following Lydiard Principles" when THEY ARE NOT IN ANY WAY SHAPE OR FORM.
You are a good guy Craig. I like you. BUT IT'S 2008. WHAT ARE THE BEST DOING TODAY? (Hint: It isn't CLASSIC LYDIARD. And please, post me some January weeks of Maottram.)
I will get bashed for "bashing Lydiard". But I'm NOT bashing Lydiard. He contributed immensely. So did the Beatles to music. So did Da Vinci to art. So did Edison to science. Are we to look to those great people in 2008 for the most up to date contributions?
Let's BUILD ON LYDIARD. WAKE UP NORTH AMERICA.
History is very important for seeing where we are now/today.
I like your style.
If I ever insinuated I thought we should strictly adhere to exactly what Lydiard did, my mistake. Of course training should evolve and be adapted- even the best training isn't good at all if it isn't flexible to adapt to an athlete's particular needs.
I just disagree with you that "modified Lydiard" is no longer "Lydiard."
The simple acid test I use for determining the "Lydiarditude" of a training program? (I lol'd at that word).
1) Does the athlete/coach describe it as Lydiard?
-pretty self explanatory. I'm not talking about some high school coach here, I mean world class guy's coaches. If a guy like Nic Bideau says "I base my stuff off Lydiard" I tend to trust his word. If Greg McMillan says "yup, I agree with a lot of Lydiard's ideas, and use them" then I would quite correctly say "that athlete trains along Lydiard principles.
Likewise, if Frank Shorter says "you know, Nobby, I always considered myself a Lydiard man- I did a lot of volume and based my training off feeling." Then I tend to think "ok, by his own word, Shorter trained according to Lydiard principles."
2) Is there a lot of (relatively) high volume at steady speeds for long periods of the year?
Ovett's training follows this model- he did a long base phase of aerobic running. Now, his coach was Harry Wilson, and I'm not sure to the degree that Wilson was influenced by Lydiard, but they certain have a lot in common in terms of training structure. So, I would look at an athlete like Ovett and go "he trained like a Lydiard guy would. . . whether or not his coach was a Lydiard guy, there's similarities there. El G did quite a bit of volume during his aerobic conditioning phases (though he also did a lot of race pace stuff in his A.C. phases too). I would look at El G's training and go "there are a lot of similarities to Lydiard here, but the structure is different and there are differences too."
3) Did the coach in question spend a lot of time with Lydiard himself or guys mentored by Lydiard?
This would apply to guys like Nobby or HRE or Bill Baillie. I would figure that guys who studied with Lydiard and tried to learn his coaching method probably coach along these methods. Now, I could be wrong, as not EVERY guy who studied with Lydiard would become a believer (the Russian coaches who studied his method and then discarded it are a good example) but again, it's a good question to ask.
So those are my three questions I ask if I'm determining the Lydiardity (or Coeity or Ceruttity) of a program. I'm more interested in the similarities between world class athletes than adhering to anything real specific.
This may be more appropriate for another thread, but these are things that interest me in running, as I'm not very familiar with them:
*gaining endurance by doing a lot of short reps at a relatively slow pace with a short recovery. Tinman wrote an article about this and it fascinated me- I had never really heard of that before in mainstream coaching.
*circuit training, as described by George Gandy. Is it a lot of fluff or really helpful? Anyone with experience?
*How much can distance runner improve pure speed? We've all heard the truism "you either have speed or you dont" but how true is it? How much can a distance guy affect his ability to accelerate, or his top-end speed, or his 40 yard dash?
Simple biochemistry questions:
In the absense of oxygen, what happens to pyruvate?
When lactate is produced, specifically what does it quickly regenerate?
(Hint: It regenerates something in the glycoltic pathway.)
When rengeration of this sources occurs, what by-product is created?
(If you name the by-product right, do you see the problem now created?) If not, think again!
Further:
You've clearly hung onto the idea that lacate is "friendly / helpful," (which I can understand on the surface since you are taking Dr. Roberg's prose literally and without thought to possible couter-point(s)). But, have you considered that lacate is more than just a "fuel?" (By the way, it really isn't, directly, a fuel. It has to be converted to be one - and that mostly happens far away from the working muscle fibers.
The process of turning lactate into a fuel is time-consuming, plus it burns ATP and it causes elevated CO2. Respiratory acidosis occurs when CO2 rises to high. Lactate and respiratory acidosis generated from a remote location has a negative effect on local contraction force and velocity.
Example: Exercising one's arms vigorously elevates and dumps lactate into blood plasma, causing the Cori Cycle in the liever, heart, and kidneys to work hard. As a direct result of blood plasma lactate elevation due to arm exercises, contractile capacity in muscle fibers are reduced in both force and velocity.
IF LACTATE WAS SO GOOD FOR YOU, DOING ARM EXERCISES, WHICH DUMPS LACATE INTO YOUR BLOODSTREAM, WOULD "FUEL" YOUR LEGS, INDIRECTLY, AND CAUSE YOU TO HAVE GREATER POWER - RUNNING VELOCITY. IT DOESN'T HAPPEN!
The physiology behind remote lactate generation:
Lacate causes muscular fatigue by inhibiting excitation coupling of actin-myosin filaments(via reduced transience of calicum cations through sarcoplasmic reticulums?) Note, I a not quoting someone and forgetting to put the quotes around the information as some people do in debate. That's my interpreation of the information.
If you need a science source, read the following:
//jap.physiology.org/cgi/content/full/82/2/447#abs
When you make a debate, be sure to include something other than repeated quotes from the same source. Break it down, make it your own, and actually KNOW what you are "talking" about. To keep saying that lacate is a buffer is shallow and shows a lack of either effort or real knowledge of what is going on.
Soon I'll end my side of this debate because I have restrictions on my time.
Recent mails sent to me have stated that you argue for the sake of arguing. I did not know this when the debate started. Thus, it seems pointless to continue much further when the path won't lead to enlightenment.
Now, I have to give my son a bottle; something far more important than typing discourse here.
Regards,
Tinman
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Davies, Dixon, Quax, Walker, Coe, Ovett, in addition to the US guys I mentioned have done long runs.
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did, but I don't count his performances as valid and I don't really know what Webb does but he managed to develop enough endurance to run in the 27:30s for 10 km.
You might well mention that all of my examples are at least twenty years old. My response would be to agree with Scott, that we've gotten away from what worked and that's why the exxamples are getting older and older.
We're never going to convince each other so I'm not going to get into a long debate here other than to say that I think people like Steve Scott and Peter Snell have a lot more credential on this than you do.
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Davies, Dixon, Quax, Walker, Coe, Ovett, in addition to the US guys I mentioned have done long runs. So does Mottram who is obviously the most successful western middle distance runner in ages.
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did, but I don't count his performances as valid and I don't really know what Webb does but he managed to develop enough endurance to run in the 27:30s for 10 km.
You might well mention that all of my examples are at least twenty years old. My response would be to agree with Scott, that we've gotten away from what worked and that's why the exxamples are getting older and older.
We're never going to convince each other so I'm not going to get into a long debate here other than to say that I think people like Bideau, Steve Scott and Peter Snell have a lot more credential on this than you do.
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Davies, Dixon, Quax, Walker, Coe, Ovett, in addition to the US guys I mentioned have done long runs. So does Mottram who is obviously the most successful western middle distance runner in ages.
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did, but I don't count his performances as valid and I don't really know what Webb does but he managed to develop enough endurance to run in the 27:30s for 10 km.
You might well mention that all of my examples are at least twenty years old. My response would be to agree with Scott, that we've gotten away from what worked and that's why the exxamples are getting older and older.
We're never going to convince each other so I'm not going to get into a long debate here other than to say that I think people like Bideau, Steve Scott and Peter Snell have a lot more credential on this than you do.
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Dav
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Davies, Dixon, Quax, Walker, Coe, Ovett, in addition to the US guys I mentioned have done long runs. So does Mottram who is obviously the most successful western middle distance runner in ages.
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did, but I don't count his performances as valid and I don't really know what Webb does but he managed to develop enough endurance to run in the 27:30s for 10 km.
You might well mention that all of my examples are at least twenty years old. My response would be to agree with Scott, that we've gotten away from what worked and that's why the exxamples are getting older and older.
We're never going to convince each other so I'm not going to get into a long debate here other than to say that I think people like Bideau, Steve Scott and Peter Snell have a lot more credential on this than you do.
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Davies, Dixon, Quax, Walker, Coe, Ovett, in addition to the US guys I mentioned have done long runs.
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did, but I don't count his performances as valid and I don't really know what Webb does but he managed to develop enough endurance to run in the 27:30s for 10 km.
You might well mention that all of my examples are at least twenty years old. My response would be to agree with Scott, that we've gotten away from what worked and that's why the exxamples are getting older and older.
We're never going to convince each other so I'm not going to get into a long debate here other than to say that I think people like Steve Scott and Peter Snell have a lot more credential on this than you do.
NO,
YES. The best American milers of my lifetime have done long runs as far as I know. That would be Ryun, Liqouri and Scott. I recall Scott being quoted in Track and Field News not too long ago as saying that the problem with American miling today is that runners have gotten away from doing a Lydiard style build up. Peter Snell thinks that even 800 meter runners can benefit from long runs. Most top level English speaking runners that I can think of, Snell, Davies, Dixon, Quax, Walker, Coe, Ovett, in addition to the US guys I mentioned have done long runs.
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did, but I don't count his performances as valid and I don't really know what Webb does but he managed to develop enough endurance to run in the 27:30s for 10 km.
You might well mention that all of my examples are at least twenty years old. My response would be to agree with Scott, that we've gotten away from what worked and that's why the exxamples are getting older and older.
We're never going to convince each other so I'm not going to get into a long debate here other than to say that I think people like Steve Scott and Peter Snell have a lot more credential on this than you do.
I completely agree with HRE here, everytime.
:o)
There are so many examples of middle distance runners, running long, to list them would bring down the servers.
In accordance with what HRE is saying - I know personally a lady, one of Canada's best all time middle distance runners and she basically ran the Lydiard method. She ran at least 80 miles per week most of the year and supplemented it with water running.
She also built enough stamina to run in the very low 30s on the roads for 10k.
...again, the examples are endless.
I'm going to say it one more time, just to see if any of you actually GET IT this last time, seeing as you (HREx10 and westcoast) seem to NOT get it yet:
LONG RUNS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE SUCCESS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
If you still persist in arguing with me then you must be completely ignorant of some sub 3:30 and sub 1:44 people who never ran more than a 90 minute single run in their lives. They may have have done a ton of 2x45min days tho. (This is not about the 40 mile a week collecge guy.)
HRE wrote:
I'm aware that Lagat doesn't seem to do them and I don't think Aouita did
So you DO agree with me then? THANK YOU.
As for what Snell supposedly said about 800m and the long run, tell that to Borzy, Kipketer, Juantorina, Reed, and oh what the hell, while we are at it...Coe too. (Please don't tell me that the odd 12-15 miler for Coe means the same thing as "he did regular long runs".) 60min was a longish run for Coe.
Wetcoast wrote:
I completely agree with HRE here, everytime.
:o)
There are so many examples of middle distance runners, running long, to list them would bring down the servers.
...again, the examples are endless.
I know so many examples of runners of middle distance that take shower everyday. So, to take shower everyday that´s the key to their results.
How many examples do you want from those who take shower but they are out of shape ?
How many runners do the long runs and they are out of shape?
How many examples of runners that DON`T DO THE LONG RUN BUT THEY HAVE MAJOR SUCCESS ?
HRE
For a long period of more than 30 yearas you are able take a few names of a few runners that had success and did the long run.
I can do the same from every training element. Those who do intervals, those who don´t. Those who do 50 miles those who don´t. There have been success in all training methods - some of them while doing wrong training according the principles.
But they are so little related to those who didn´t.
Also the fact that Peter Snell thinks that long runs are benefic for 800m or 1500m that means not too much. How are the runners that Peter Snell coaches that did success on Snell´s method ? The physiology argument that Snell uses to relieve the interest of long runs isn´t rational or logic at all. What you stimulate in a 2 hours long run that you don´t by run twice an hour run that same day that´s so important for a 2 to 4 minutes run ?
The benefit of the long run for middle distance events comes from the fact that if you do more volume training you train your aerobic condition. But yiou benefit the same or best if you do that same volume spread by twice a day.
As far as I can tell, no one is actually arguing with you, because it takes at least two to argue (one on each side), and you have not really started yet.In order for anyone to GET your point, you need to develop it. You started with a bald, provocative, assertion, without any real support, assuming that that would somehow sink in, and people would GET IT.You asked us to take the statement for what it is. Any bald assertion, especially from an anonymous source, without supporting statements, is a statement which has no meaning in and of itself. It may represent an idea, but needs development for it to have any real meaning (not unlike athletes need development to become significant).For example, I'm wondering, is there an accepted definition of "long run"? How long does it have to be, to be considered a long run? Only just now, you're idea seems to be 90 minutes. If my event is a 2 minute race, then 30 minutes seems like a long time comparatively. Therefore all of your 2x45 minutes examples believe that long runs are so ESSENTIAL, they do it twice a day! Do you see how not explaining the context can actually work against your stated purpose of everyone GETTING your point?If your examples never ran more than 90 minutes a day in there lives, how do we know they are reaching their potential? How do we know they wouldn't run even faster by including 90 minutes runs at the right times, if they never did it. Maybe they are succeeding, but selling themselves short.Maybe you can try again, for the 4th or 5th time, to clarify what you are actually trying to assert, and then any meaningful debate can start.Regards,
NO wrote:
I'm going to say it one more time, just to see if any of you actually GET IT this last time, seeing as you (HREx10 and westcoast) seem to NOT get it yet:
LONG RUNS ARE NOT ESSENTIAL FOR MIDDLE DISTANCE SUCCESS AT THE HIGHEST LEVELS.
If you still persist in arguing with me then you must be completely ignorant of some sub 3:30 and sub 1:44 people who never ran more than a 90 minute single run in their lives. They may have have done a ton of 2x45min days tho. (This is not about the 40 mile a week collecge guy.)
Thanks CraigMac4h
With your post perseverance and and my own we were able to allow Lydiardism and all the rest that "the king is naked".
I ever knew that i´m not alone on the Lydiard method crticism the one of Lydiardism.
Ther´s no democracy of opinion without a fair debate. They can´t spread his own vision of the Lydiardism without the contradictory. That´s what some Lydiardism they want to avoid. They wanted to spread their truth and get back the approval of all the rest even from those who don´t agree with them.
The Lydiardism ultimate argument is based in an emotional and sentimental attach to the Lydiard The Man Lydiard The Coach and his memory. I respect Lydiard, and i think that we all do. Simply this is not enough to let pass what´s wrong, or outdate innadequate inconsistent contradictory.
I didn't understand CraigMac4h to be on your side. In spite of all your words, I'm still not sure you've shown that anything is "wrong", "inadequate", "inconsistent", or "contradictory". If "outdated" just means old, or that no one is doing it anymore, I still don't know if that is significant.With respect to "They wanted to spread their truth and get back the approval of all the rest even from those who don´t agree with them". Lydiard enthusiasts believe the system is the best, and want to spread what they believe is a good thing, and hope others see it the same way, but I hardly believe they are waiting to get back your approval.Lydiard gave us a package, and said, if you do this, it works, and he explained why the package is the way it is. Although everything in the package already existed, he was the first one to come with that specific package. The package itself allows for a great deal of adaptation to the athletes, so quite often, what people might call "modified" Lydiard, is still the same package.Now if you take that package, and take out some stuff, and replace it with other stuff, you have a different package. What can we say:- Although the new package may have a lot of common with the Lydiard package, it is not a Lydiard package.- Success with the new package does not disprove the Lydiard package. You can not assume, and certainly have not proved, that there was anything wrong with the stuff taken out of the Lydiard package, or the whole package itself.If you look at all of the successful packages that there are, you could prioritize which elements are the important, and which are not. Lydiard said a lot of things but surely some are more important than others.For example, taking aerobic development, periodicity, hill work, and coordination out will leave you with a pretty empty package.But it should be possible to take small elements, like "Lydiard lacing" out of the package, and not suffer too much negative impact on performance development (assuming that doesn't contribute to a foot injury), and still have a pretty package.Regards,